Use of the Behavior Assessment Tool in 18 Pilot Residency Programs

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and evaluate the effectiveness of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Behavior Tool (ABOSBT) for measuring professionalism. Methods: Through collaboration between the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery and American Orthopaedic Association\u27s Council of Residency Directors, 18 residency programs piloted the use of the ABOSBT. Residents requested assessments from faculty at the end of their clinical rotations, and a 360° request was performed near the end of the academic year. Program Directors (PDs) rated individual resident professionalism (based on historical observation) at the outset of the study, for comparison to the ABOSBT results. Results: Nine thousand eight hundred ninety-two evaluations were completed using the ABOSBT for 449 different residents by 1,012 evaluators. 97.6% of all evaluations were scored level 4 or 5 (high levels of professional behavior) across all of the 5 domains. In total, 2.4% of all evaluations scored level 3 or below reflecting poorer performance. Of 431 residents, the ABOSBT identified 26 of 32 residents who were low performers (2 or more \u3c level 3 scores in a domain) and who also scored below expectations by the PD at the start of the pilot project (81% sensitivity and 57% specificity), including 13 of these residents scoring poorly in all 5 domains. Evaluators found the ABOSBT was easy to use (96%) and that it was an effective tool to assess resident professional behavior (81%). Conclusions: The ABOSBT was able to identify 2.4% low score evaluations ( Level of Evidence: Level II

Survival Outcomes and Factors Associated with Revision Surgery for Metastatic Disease of the Spine

Study Design. Retrospective review of a prospective database. Objective. Certain subset of patients undergoing surgical treatment for spinal metastasis will require a revision surgery in their disease course; however, factors predictive of revision surgery and survival outcomes are largely unknown. The goal of this study is to report on survival outcomes as well as factors predictive of revision surgery in this unique patient population. Methods. A total of 55 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included from January 2010 to December 2015. Twelve (22%) of these patients underwent a revision surgery. Patient and tumor characteristics were summarized and survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results. Both the revision and the nonrevision groups were similarly matched with respect to spine disease burden, neurological status at time of initial presentation, primary malignancy types, and the use of adjuvant treatment modalities. Tumor progression (66.7%) was the most common reason for necessitating a revision followed by nonunion (16.7%), wound dehiscence (8.3%), and construct failure (8.3%). Following multivariate model selection procedures, smokers were found to have 3.5 times increased odds of undergoing revision compared to nonsmokers (p = 0.05). Analysis of survival curves showed that the median survival in the revision group was 3.0 years (95% CI: 1.5, 4.1), while the median survival in the nonrevision group was 1.5 years (95% CI: 1.1, 2.3; log-rank test, p = 0.105). Conclusion. Despite aggressive treatment, tumor progression is the most common reason for revision surgery. Smoking is an independent risk factor for revision. Revision surgery should be considered in patients when indicated as it does not appear to detrimentally affect survival

Accessibility and content of individualized adult reconstructive hip and knee/musculoskeletal oncology fellowship web sites

Background: Accessible, adequate online information is important to fellowship applicants. Program web sites can affect which programs applicants apply to, subsequently altering interview costs incurred by both parties and ultimately impacting rank lists. Web site analyses have been performed for all orthopaedic subspecialties other than those involved in the combined adult reconstruction and musculoskeletal (MSK) oncology fellowship match. Methods: A complete list of active programs was obtained from the official adult reconstruction and MSK oncology society web sites. Web site accessibility was assessed using a structured Google search. Accessible web sites were evaluated based on 21 previously reported content criteria. Results: Seventy-four adult reconstruction programs and 11 MSK oncology programs were listed on the official society web sites. Web sites were identified and accessible for 58 (78%) adult reconstruction and 9 (82%) MSK oncology fellowship programs. No web site contained all content criteria and more than half of both adult reconstruction and MSK oncology web sites failed to include 12 of the 21 criteria. Conclusions: Several programs participating in the combined Adult Reconstructive Hip and Knee/Musculoskeletal Oncology Fellowship Match did not have accessible web sites. Of the web sites that were accessible, none contained comprehensive information and the majority lacked information that has been previously identified as being important to perspective applicants